Prehistoric Pile Dwellings around the Alps

153 Pages·2011·7 MB·English

Prehistoric
Pile Dwellings
around
the Alps
World Heritage nomination Additional Information
Switzerland, Austria, France, Germany, February 2011
Italy, Slovenia

Table of
Contents
A. Answers to ICOMOS
D. Revised Executive Summary
A.1 Introduction
Countries
A.2 Key Issues
State, Province or Region
Name of Property
B. Revised selection of component parts Geographical coordinates to the nearest
second
B.1 Principles
Maps
B.2 Criteria
Proposed Statement of Outstanding
B.3 Selection of component parts Universal Value
B.4 Result Criteria under which the property is
nominated
Name and contact information of official
C. Revised chapter 1 Nomination File local Institutions / Agencies
1.a Countries
1.b State, Province or Region E. Signatures
1.c Name of Property
1.d Geographical coordinates to the nearest
second F. Varia
1.e Maps and plans, showing the boundaries of
the nominated property and buffer zone
1.f Area of nominated property (ha) and pro-
posed buffer zone (ha)

A.
Additional Information
Answers to ICOMOS
A.1 Introduction
A.2 Key Issues
1. Why does the nomination Prehistoric Pile Dwellings
around the Alps require a relatively high number of
component parts to demonstrate its OUV?
2. Why is there a difference in geographical density
between the selected component parts in the diffe-
rent macro-regions?
3. Does the natural setting of the site correlate with its
value and level of protection and management?
4. What is the relationship between the institutional
protection level, the importance of the site, and the
legal effect of the protection on any given site?
5. Would it be possible to reduce the number of selected
component parts?
6. How can the rationale of the selection be better de-
monstrated?
7. How is the protection and management of the sites
ensured in Austria, which measures have been taken
to enhance the preservation of pile dwellings?
5

A. Answers to ICOMOS A.1 Introduction
A.1 Introduction
By letter of 14th December 2010, ICOMOS International asked the States Par-
ties of Switzerland, Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia to clarify several
issues regarding the World Heritage nomination Prehistoric Pile Dwellings around
the Alps, submitted by the States Parties in 2010 and currently under evaluation.
The States Parties delegated the answering of ICOMOS’ questions to their ex-
perts within the International Coordination Group ICG, the transnational manage-
ment body of the nomination. After intense debate, the ICG further discussed and
adopted the additional information hereby submitted, in an extraordinary meeting
on 26th January 2011 in Bern (Switzerland).
The selection of the 156 component parts has been re-assessed taking into
consideration ICOMOS’ remarks, particularly regarding the contribution of each single
component part to the overall OUV of the serial, as well as their excellence in terms of
protection and management. The aim of the revision of the site selection was to avoid
duplication of sites with similar values. As a result, the serial has been reduced from
the initial 156 sites to 111.
The additional information submitted hereby consists of
– the present document answering in detail ICOMOS’ questions, formulated in 7
key issues;
– the revised selection of component parts replacing chapter 3.c.7 of the Nomina-
tion File, Volume I, and subsequently
– the revised chapter 1 (including the maps) of the Nomination File, Volume I;
– the revised Executive Summary;
– the signatures of all participating States Parties to the additional information;
– the annex (‘Varia’) with additional documents as well as the electronic versions of
all the documents including the updated data base.
Independently of the requested additional information, the ICG also submits the cur-
rent state of the nomination’s management plan (Management Plan Version 2.0),
which has evolved substantially since its first submission in 2010.
7
Additional Information
A.2 Key Issues
1. Why does the nomination Prehistoric Pile Dwellings around the Alps
require a relatively high number of component parts to demonstrate its OUV?
This serial nomination represents an archaeological prehistoric phenomenon. It is
difficult to directly compare its methodology with other serial nominations, e.g. of
built monuments of modern times. The value of the pile-dwelling archaeology oscil-
lates between scientific knowledge gained through – invasive – excavation work and
enormous archaeological potential and highest authenticity of mainly untouched, and
thus non- excavated sites. The nomination aims at balancing and limiting these two
extremes (highest knowledge, but no material left in situ vs. highest authenticity and
potential of an untouched, theoretically even unknown site), to a serial that will ensure
the long-term conservation of the entire phenomenon, as a kind of ‘archive’, providing
sufficient and authentic knowledge, while also retaining archaeological potential for
the future. This value cannot be demonstrated by a very limited serial.
The pile-dwellings sites around the Alps reflect clearly defined cultural and histori-
cal links spanning over 4500 years, over a wide geographical area. The serial bears
exceptional testimony to the early European agricultural civilizations, established over
a 4500-year period on lake shores and in wetlands around the Alps. It is an outstand-
ing example of the development of early human settlements, reflecting the appear-
ance, transformation and establishment of prehistoric village structures, as well as
the development, over time, of building traditions in wooden housing, and all around
the Alps. Thanks to the exceptional richness of archaeological sites and finds, and the
outstanding wealth of organic archaeological remains, providing extremely precise
scientific outcomes, the serial is able to represent, in an very detailed manner, the de-
velopment of the entire pile-dwelling civilizations with their cultural, social, historical
and functional links over 4500 years around the Alps.
The organization of the pile-dwelling civilizations was small-scaled, even though
relations and exchanges existed over large distances: The pile-dwelling societies
were a network of relatively small cultural groups which developed differently over
time ÿ Nomination File, Volume I, p. 123–125, but which were mutually linked and influenced,
also over the apparently rigid barrier of the Alps. This small-scale social organization,
the variety of cultural groups and the multiple settlement typologies ÿ Nomination File,
Volume I, p. 113 vary over time and depending on the geographical area. The ‘macro-
regions’ have been introduced with this nomination in order to grasp this cultural
and geographic variety, independent of modern administrative frontiers, but meeting
cultural and natural settlement conditions. Thanks to the possibilities and results of
dendrochronology, we can retrace the settlement development for each macro-region
and reflect the manifold, and locally adapted, prehistoric cultural developments and
building traditions.
In order to demonstrate the OUV of this archaeological phenomenon and to fulfill
the conditions of integrity, archaeological sites of all periods, all macro-regions and
representing the wide variety of cultural groups, settlement structures and everyday
life development must be part of the serial. Thus, the minimum number of compo-
nent parts must be relatively high. Scientific archaeological on-site research produ-
ces knowledge which can be merged, completed, compared and verified with results
from other sites, to form a reliable picture of prehistoric culture based on authentic
sources. The value of the archeological phenomenon can be understood as a puzzle,
composed by the exceptional research results of all the pile-dwelling sites around the
Alps. To demonstrate OUV of the nomination, a sufficient number of pieces of the
puzzle is needed.
8
A. Answers to ICOMOS A.2 Key Issues
To demonstrate OUV, the minimum number of component parts must be selec-
ted. The 937 known sites underwent comparative analysis to select the component
parts of the nomination. This was done using a variety of indicators to underscore
the precise contribution of each selected component part to the overall OUV within
the different chronologies. The questions addressed by ICOMOS in its letter of 14th
December 2010 have been used to re-evaluate the initial selection process in refining
its criteria, and in order to further restrict the serial to the minimum number of compo-
nent parts needed.
2. Why is there a difference in geographical density between the selected
component parts in the different macro-regions?
The variety in the geographic density of the component parts corresponds in general
to archaeological reality and consequently, to the density of the preserved and known
pile-dwelling sites in each macro-region.
Therefore, where the macro-region presents a particular richness of well-preser-
ved sites, the density of selected component parts is higher. The number of preserved
sites is to a large extent determined by archaeological realities, and subsequently by
historical preservation conditions, but also reflects the modern state of research. For
example, stronger natural erosion, due to waves over chiliads of years, means that the
number of preserved sites is substantially smaller on the shores of the large bodies
of water such as Lake Geneva (Switzerland/France) or Lake Constance (Switzerland/
Germany). In contrast, the number of preserved sites is particularly high around the
estuaries of those lakes, thanks to good natural local preservation conditions.
The actual number of preserved sites and their location is also determined by the
intense research motivated after melioration works and lake level lowering underta-
ken in the different areas from the 19th century onwards, which brought to light the
presence of prehistoric sites ÿ Nomination File, Volume I, p. 152 et seqq. Hypothetically, pile-
dwelling sites may exist in other (former) humid areas around and even in the Alps.
Their existence, and preservation, however, is not proven.
Just as today, in prehistoric times, too, some areas were more popular as places
of settlement than others, mostly for geomorphological reasons: Steep slopes on the
shores did not provide the best conditions for settlement places. There are therefore
fewer pile-dwellings sites at the northern end of Lake Garda (Italy) than on the more
suitable southern shore of the same lake.
In some macro-regions, e.g. the ‘Three Lakes Region’ (Switzerland), several
selected sites are located in close vicinity and the macro-region seems ‘over-repre-
sented’. In this macro-region, a high prehistoric settlement density benefited from
particularly favorable preservation conditions, followed by a long tradition of research.
As a result, in this macro-region alone, over 200 archaeological sites are currently in-
ventoried. This does not mean, however, that the 23 sites now selected in this macro-
region all represent similar value: the sites date from different periods or represent
different building typologies or a particular variety in the discovered remains, and thus
contribute different attributes to the overall OUV of the serial: Prehistoric settlement
was dynamic. Above all in the Neolithic Age, villages were inhabited for a few deca-
des only, and were disassembled and rebuilt nearby, possibly using adapted patterns.
In other cases, particularly of the Late Neolithic Age, we face the specific case of
a superposition of prehistoric villages, forming a sort of pile-dwelling tells, a situa-
tion very different from a dispersed ensemble of villages. The selection of a higher
number of component parts in a macro-region with a locally high density of known
and preserved sites, aims at reflecting the detailed variety of social development and
habitat within the macro-region, while each site must contribute specifically to the
overall OUV and represent a satisfying and auspicious state of preservation. In other
9
Additional Information
cases, e.g. ‘Lake Starnberg’ or ‘Loosbach Valley’ (Bavaria, Germany), only few sites
are preserved, possibly due to archaeological realities, and almost all of them have
been selected, in order to fulfill the integrity of the serial and gain representation of
the specificity of the sites of this macro-region.
In Italy, the maps ÿ Nomination File, Volume I, p. 64 et seqq. do not represent all known
pile-dwelling sites (nominated and associated sites), but only those that are relatively
well preserved and with a broad state of research. The number of selected sites as
a proportion of existing sites therefore appears to be different from that in the other
macro-regions.
Thanks to the reliable dates provided by dendrochronology, contemporaneous
sites can be identified. This enables us to define differences and similarities, rules and
exceptions, which is fundamental for the understanding of the mechanisms that ruled
the prehistoric civilizations. In the initial selection process, it was a deliberate principle
to choose several sites in the same macro-region which date from exactly the same
period and highlight similar aspects, as the density of sites, as well as its scientific po-
tential, was seen as one of the outstanding qualities of the pile-dwellings phenome-
non ÿ Nomination File, Volume I, p. 206. Considering ICOMOS remarks of 14th December
2010, this general principle has been abandoned: While it is true that the comparison
of several similar sites is crucial for scientific research, it might not necessarily be
required to demonstrate OUV of the serial. Therefore, the serial has been re-assessed
avoiding ‘duplicate sites’.
3. Does the natural setting of the site correlate with its value and level of pro-
tection and management?
The contemporary natural (or urban) environment, i.e. the contemporary ‘setting’ of
the site, contributes neither to the specific value of the site, nor to the overall OUV of
the serial, as natural qualities are totally independent from the archaeological value.
Today’s natural setting of some sites might induce the idea of a particularly ‘authentic’
environment, and thus a better preservation of the site. This contemporary percep-
tion of the setting is, however, misleading, not only because the natural environment
was probably completely different in prehistoric times, but also because the OUV of
the serial is based on authentic archaeological sources and scientific results, which
the qualities of the actual setting are not part of ÿ Nomination File, Volume I, p. 269. If con-
temporary natural values of a site’s setting were used as selection criteria, the OUV
would be distorted, as very exceptional and important sites, located in an urban area,
must be part of the serial, too, to demonstrate its OUV.
However, regardless of the location, all nominated component parts must have
adequate protection and management.
All nominated component parts are legally protected according to each State’s
Parties rules concerning archaeological heritage protection. Many sites are located in
a nature or landscape protection zone, and thus benefit additionally from those pro-
tection and management schemes. However, this synergy in legal protection and ma-
nagement is accidental (as criteria for natural and archaeological protection zones are
different), and not a conditio sine qua non for the excellent management of pile-dwel-
ling sites. Archaeological sites can also be best protected and preserved in densely
urbanized zones. Zug–Riedmatt (CH-ZG-05) for example, is situated in a cultural heri-
tage protection zone in an urban environment. Any eventual construction work nearby
must respect the site that is situated 6 metres below the surface and submerged in
groundwater, thus very well protected. Another site, Arbon–Bleiche 2–3 (CH-TG-01),
is not threatened by development pressure, despite the site’s location in the middle
of an industrial estate, thanks to an overlying modern earth deposit of more than 5
metres in depth: Eventual overlying development is not legally allowed to reach far
10